9.III.1.8.1 Goals

MiFID I introduced post-trade transparency obligations for RMs, MTFs, and investment firms operating outside such venues in respect of shares admitted to trading on an RM. The intention was to ensure investors were informed as to the true level of actual transactions in such shares, regardless whether the transaction took place on an RM, MTF or outside such venues.1 To achieve these transparency aims, MiFID I broadened the post-trade transparency requirements compared to the ISD by requiring investment firms outside RMs (and MTFs) to be post-trade transparent.2

During the MiFID I-review, many market participants expressed concerns about the effect of fragmentation of post-trade data, especially in relation to equity post-trade transparency published by investment firms operating outside RMs and MTFs. CESR emphasized the need for timely post-trade information and removing barriers to consolidation of post-trade data.3 Similar perspectives were apparent in the Commission’s MiFIR Proposal, as reviewed by the European Parliament and Council.4 At the same time, consideration was given to the smaller scale of investment firms operating outside RMs and MTFs compared to RMs/MTFs in drafting the MiFID II equity post-trade transparency rules.

The latter is evident in the final MiFID II framework. Similar to MiFID I, MiFID II intends to uphold a high degree of post-trade transparency, whether the trade takes place on an RM, MTF, or investment firm operating outside such a venue.5 In doing so, MiFID II takes into account the (smaller) scale of investment firms operating outside RMs and MTFs compared to RMs/MTFs.